A Commentary on
"The Educational
Role in College
Student Housing"
CAROLYN PALMER
ELLEN M. BROIDO
Associate Professor Higher Education
and Sludenl Affairs
Bowling Green Slate University
Associate Professor Higher Education
and StudenI Affairs
Bowling Green State University
JO CAMPBELL
Director of Residence Life
The University of Toledo
toMO State University. Ames, ¡ovia
86
T H E JOURNAL
O FC O L L E G E
A N D UNIVERSITY
STUDENT
HOUSING
IN THEIR 1971 ARTICLE, "The Educational Role in College
Student Housing," Riker and DeCoster outlined two basic
assumptions underlying efforts to infuse educational
elements into college residence halls: (1) environment
influences behavior, and (2) learning is a total process.
They also presented a framework that identifies five
... a tradition so
objectives for student housing that range from those
fundamental, so
focused on the construction and renovation of physical
facilities to those fostering the growth and development of
all-encompassing,
students. In this article, we place these ideas within their
that to call it
historical context and reflect on the ways in which they
merely a tradition
have evolved and influenced the housing profession
is to undervalue
during the past 37 years.
it. For what is
involved here is
THE ROLE OF STUDENT HOUSING
IN HIGHER EDUCATION
nothing less than
integrating the living and learning experiences of students is not a
novel concept. During the early centuries ofthe Common Era (CE),
and even before the Common Era (BCH), adults (usually young
men) traveled long distances by fool, donkey, or oxcart to "sit at
the feet of the masters" or learn from Confucius, Plato, Socrates,
and other great philosophers, scientists, artists, clergy, and educational leaders of their time (Lucas, 2006). Once they reached their
destinations, many were advised to live vi^ith each other and with
their teadiers, at least in part because it was assumed that the interactions that occurred where they lived would contribute to their
learning. Perhaps universities were yet to be created, but the school
where Confucius lived with his students in the years BCE had much
in common with today's residential college.
a way of life, the
collegiate way...
Moving forward many centuries to the founding ofthe colonial
colleges in America, we again find students and faculty living together in campus dormitories (Rudolph, 1990). Perhaps the assumption that hving and learning experiences were mutually enhancing
still held. However, given that most American commxmities did not
have high schools until early in the 20th century, we must bear in
VOLUME
35. N O 2 • O C T O B E R / N O V E M B E R
2008
87
Carolyn Palmer • Ellen M. Broido • lo Campbell
mind that most students who entered college in
earlier years did so immediately after grammar
school (eighth grade), when they were about
14 years old. Because students were young
adolescents, faculty served in loco parentis and
their out-of-class duties focused on developing
moral character and regulating student behavior. Indeed, in 1869 Harvard's President Eliot
stated. "In spite of the familiar picture of the
moral dangers which environ the student, there
is no place so safe as a good college during the
critical passage from boyhood to manhood" (as
cited in Rudolph. 1990, p. 88).
Colleges and universities in what would
become the United States were also residential
for a reason described by Rudolph (1990) as
a tradition so fundamental, so all-encompassing, that to call it merely a tradition is to undervalue it. For what is
involved here is nothing less than a way
oflife. the collegiate way
the notion
that a curriculum, a library, a faculty,
and students are not enough to make
a college. It is an adherence to the residential scheme of things, (p. 87)
THE
JOURNAL
OF
COLLEGE
AND
UNIVERSITY
As the German model became
more pronounced in American
institutions, faculty devoted more
time to research and there emerged
new administrative units that
assumed responsibility for student
life outside of the classroom. Led
initially by deans of men and
women, these units became lcnown
as student affairs...
According to Rudolph, early American colleges
adopted a collegiate model primarily because
their founders were graduates of the English
residential colleges. He wrote, "Had the first
American colleges been the work of Scotchmen or of continental Europeans, perhaps
a curriculum, a library, faculty, and students
would have been enough" (p. 87}. However,
because the American population was small
and dispersed, it was not possible to adopt the
European model in which university students
lived on their own in cities. When Harvard
was founded in 1636, there were no "cities" to
speak of in the colonies. The collegiate model
88
was "at first the only solution to the absence of
large concentrations of population" and "by the
time the colleges in Philadelphia and New York
were under way, the collegiate pattern was not
a necessity. For there were cities, But by then
what had been a necessity had become a tradition" (Rudolph, 1990, pp. 87-88).
5 T U D E N T
In the early 1800s increasing numbers of
critics of the collegiate model claimed that high
concentrations of young men living together, with so little academic work to do and so
many vices to distract them, led to moral decay
and rebellion. In 1842. Brown's President
Wayland ascribed
most of the evils of college life . . . to
dormitories: the inappropriateness of
the same rules and regulations for students of all ages, the spread of diseases
by epidemics, the tendency of students
to exercise too little, the exposure of
H O U S I N G
Commentary on Buter and DeCostei
many young men to the vice and habits
of evil leaders, the isolation of the
college from the life of the community
and of the works, the expenditure of
money needed for libraries on living
facilities, [and] the imposition on the
college of responsibilities it was unable
and unprepared to carry out effectively.
(Rudolph, 1990, p. 99)
These critics gained influence with the support
of increasing numbers of administrators
who had studied abroad and experienced the
German model of higher education, which
required faculty to create and transmit knowledge through research. As the German mode!
became more pronounced in American institutions, faculty devoted more time to research
and there emerged new administrative imits
that assumed responsibility for student life
outside of the classroom (Rudolph, 1990). Led
initially by deans of men and women, these
units became known as student affairs, and
one of their responsibilities was to operate
student housing.
Until the middle of the 20th century, livein staff served primarily as building managers and student disciplinarians. Most housing
stafï" had no educational preparation to integrate living and learning experiences or even
to work with college students. In fact, many
did not have college degrees themselves. As
housing systems grew in size and complexity,
it became apparent that professionally trained
staff were needed in college housing. S. Earl
Thompson articulated this need in 1949 at the
first National Housing Conference {Transcript,
1949). Participants in this conference and in
similar conferences in the next two years led
to the formation of the Association of College
and University Housing Officers (ACUHO) in
1952 (Frederiksen. 1993).
During the 1950s and 1960s, college
housing experienced a period of unprecedented growth as higher education expanded
to serve two large groups of students. First
were the World War II veterans who enrolled
in college with financial assistance provided
by the G. I. Bill. Then came the large group
of "baby boomers" bom soon after the war
ended. During these two decades, conferences
and publications for housing professionals
focused primarily on the design, construction,
funding, and management of new student
housing facilities ranging from family housing
apartments for veterans who were married and
had children to high-rise residence halls that
could house hundreds of students (Unruh,
1995). Once the construction phase was dealt
with, housing officers focused their attention
on staff and programs that were, or would
become, associated with residence life.
In his 1961 book. Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities, Williamson
described the functions of student housing
personnel as "securing housing; maintaining
standards of hygiene, safety, and behavior in
dormitories, fraternities, sororities, and private
rooming houses; residential counseling; and
stimulating students to participate in governing and administering the dormitories and
other residences" (p. 31). Although suggesting
that housing has an "educative function" (p.
78), he did not elaborate on the nature of this
function. Thus, it appears that housing was
perceived primarily as a service unit and that
its functions were largely divorced from the
academic mission of the institution, or at least
divorced from the academic curriculum.
VOLUME
35,
NO. 2 • O C T O B E R / N O V E M B E R
2008
89
Carolyn Palmer • Ellen M. Broido • io Campbell
In 1965 Harold C. Riker, then the director of housing at the University of Florida,
wrote College Housing as teaming Centers,
a monograph that was published by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA)
in cooperation with ACUHO. In its preface
Riker said,
Living is to be defined as more than
a bed and learning as more than a
desk; they are part of a total process,
a wholeness of student experience on
the campus. To contribute favorably
and consistently to this experience,
the living and learning that go on in
student housing have to be stimulated
and sustained by planned programs.
(P-v)
STUDENT LEARNING AND
OTHER OUTCOMES OF THE
RESIDENTIAL EXPERIENCE
Although noting that "Housing theory and
practice are often light years apart" (p. 47),
Riker emphasized that
During the latter half of the 1960s, many
housing officers implemented at least some of
the recommendations Riker (1965) offered for
staff, programs, facilities, funding, and other
areas that needed to be addressed in turning
residence halls into effective living-learn-
Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, the
professional literature has been infused with
individual studies and research reviews or
meta-analyses of hundreds of studies focusing
on the impacts of various aspects of housing's
programs and facilities on student learning.
development, retention, academic achievement, and other outcomes of the residence
hall experience. A small sample of books focusing on the educational function of college
housing include Commuting Versus Resident
Students (Chickering, 1975), Maximizing Educational Opporunities in Residence Halls (Blimling & Schuh, 1981), Realizing the Educational
Potential of Residence Halls (Schroeder. Mable,
& Associates, 1994), Educational Programming
and Student Learning in College and University
Residence Halls (Schuh, 1999), The ¡mpact of
College on Students (Feldman & Newcomb.
1969), What Matters in College? (Astin, 1993b).
and How College Affects Students (Pascarella &.
Terenzini, 1991, 2005). These resources devote
THE
H O U S I N G
The time is at hand when trustees and
administrators will recognize out of
necessity that housing designed and
administered for formal or informal
teaching purposes is not a philosophi. cal ideal that is "nice if we can afford
it." It is a requirement produced by
changing times and conditions. For
those who say that they cannot afford
educationally oriented housing, the fact
ofthe matter is that they cannot afford
not to have it on the future residential
campus, (p. 2)
90
ing centers. The educational role of student
housing had become a "hot topic" in the profession. Thus, it is not surprising that ACUHO
chose {or perhaps solicited) a manuscript focusing on this topic as the first article for the
first issue of its joumal in 1971. The article was
co-authored by Riker and David A. DeCoster,
another scholar-practitioner, then the associate director of housing at the University of
Georgia. Three years later, DeCoster and Mable
(1974) produced another classic book on this
topic. Student Development and Education in
College Residence Halls.
i O U R N A l
O F COLLEGE
A N DU N I V E R S I T V
S T U D E N T
Commeniary on Riker and DeCosier
Living on rather than off campus
does promote more positive and
inclusive racial-ethnic attitudes
and openness to diversity ...
The residential impact is strongest
in those living settings purposefully
structured to encourage students'
encounters with people different
from themselves and with ideas
different from those they
currently hold.
the entire book, major sections, or chapters
to summaries of research on the educational
impact of the residential experience. The most
recent and most extensive meta-analysis of this
research was provided by Pascarella and Terenzini in their most recent volume (2005), which
was based on a synthesis of 2,600 studies
completed between 1989 and 2002 (p. 10).
Their concluding section regarding the effects
of student residence (pp. 603-604) indicated
the following:
I. Place of residence appears to have little, if
any, influence on general cognitive growth
or more specific knowledge acquisition.
However, students who live on campus
(compared to those who live off campus)
were more likely to be satisfied with their
college experience and to be retained to
graduation. Further, "students who live in
living-learning settings are more likely, net
of other factors, to persist than are similar
students in traditional housing arrangements" (p. 604). Pascarella and Terenzini also noted that students who live on
campus also make greater gains in several
areas of development and experience
greater changes regarding specific values
and attitudes during their college years.
2. "Residence efFecls are primarily indirect
rather than direct" (Pascarella &. Terenzini,
2005. p. 604). For example, students who
live on campus interact with peers and
faculty and participate in extracurricular
activities more often than do students who
live off campus, and these interactions and
activities are themselves positively associated with many college outcomes, including
retention and graduation.
}. Residential effects on student learning and
development are greatest in residential environments that are intentionally designed
to achieve those effects. For example, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005} noted that
Living on rather than off campus
does promote more positive and
inclusive racial-ethnic attitudes and
openness to diversity. . . . The residential impact is strongest in those
living settings purposefiilly structured to encourage students' encounters with people different from
themselves and with ideas different from those they currently hold,
(p. 603)
Another example involves the effects of residence environments that are intentionally
structured to foster interactions between students and faculty or to integrate in-class and
out-of-dass experiences. Terenzini and Pascarelia (1997) reported that residence halls
having the greatest effects on student learnVOLUMË
3 5 ,NO. 2 • O C T O B E R ' N O V E M B E R
2008
Carolyn Palmer • Ellen M. Btoido • ]o Campbell
ing and retention "are typically the result of
purposeful, programmatic efforts to integrate
students' intellectual and social lives during
college—^living-leaming centers are not only a
neat idea, they actually work!" {p. 178).
REVISITING RIKER AND
DECOSTER'S ASSUMPTIONS
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) provided evidence that supports Riker's (1965) and Riker
and DeCoster's (1971) assumptions that environment influences behavior and that learning is a total process. These premises underlie
many theories and practices that support the
educational role of contemporary college
housing. Our commentary reverses the order
in which Riker and DeCoster originally presented their two assumptions in an attempt to
show that an understanding of learning as a
total process informs our development of environments that not only influence behavior, but
foster student learning and development.
That students are considered whole persons,
that learning involves a multifaceted process
extending beyond the purely intellectual
domain, and that in-class and out-of-class
learning experiences are mutually enhancing
have become foundational assumptions in
student affairs in general and campus housing
in particular. As early as 1945, the American
Council on Education emphasized that
Educational effectiveness is dependent
upon the normal healthy functioning
of the student outside as well as v^'ithin
the classroom. The student, however
intelligent, who is physically ill, who
is frustrated in his personal and social
T H E JOURNAL
O FCOLLEGE
A N D UNIVERSITV
These outcomes clearly describe
Riker and DeCoster's (1971)
learning as a total process, as they
Incorporate traditional academic
learning and skill development
with personal commitments,
interpersonal dynamics, and
community engagement. Clearly,
such holistic student learning and
Learning Is a Total Process
92
relationships, who is worried about his
finances, who lacks a sense of direction and orientation in his education,
and whose housing and study conditions constantly interfere with learning
is in no position to give his best to his
studies, and to get the most from them.
STUDENT
development may be fostered in the
residential envirorunent.
Many housing officers would add only a
hearty "amen!" to the above statement and to
the final sentence in the 1968 quotation from
the Committee on Higher Education cited by
Riker and DeCoster (1971), which reads, "To
teach the subject matter and ignore the realities ofthe student's life and the social systems
of the college is hopelessly naïve" (p, 4). In
1974, Brown essentially turned the tables and
HOUSING
Commentary on Riker and DeCostei
urged practitioners to consider the following
as well:
It is time for student personnel workers
to recognize that they too have been
dealing with only a part of the student,
and it is no more valid for them to
expect effectiveness in dealing with the
student's development, independent of
his academic life, than it is for the professor to think a student's personal self
does not afTect his academic grovrth.
(P- 43)
These statements asserted the integrated
nature of student learning and the inseparability of academic and non-academic, or in-class
and out-of-class, learning experiences. These
assertions were expanded upon in The Student
Learning Imperative {American College Personnel Association [ACPAj, 1994), Powerfitl
Partnerships (American Association for Higher
Education [AAHE], ACPA. & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
[NASPA], 1998}. and Learning Reconsidered
(NASPA & ACPA, 2004), along with other influential documents published during the past
few years. In perhaps the most recent of these
documents, College Learning for the New Global
Century, the American Association of Colleges
and Universities (2007) identified four critical
outcomes of an undergraduate education:
• Knowledge of human cultures and the
physical and natural world;
• Intellectual and practical skills, including
inquiry and analysis, critical and creative
thinking, written and oral communication,
quantitative and information literacy, teamwork and problem solving;
• Personal and social responsibility, including civic knowledge and engagement—
local and global, intercultural knowledge
and competence, ethical reasoning and
action, foundations and skills for lifelong
learning; and
• Integrative learning, including synthesis
and advanced accomplishment across
general and specialized studies, (p. 3)
These outcomes clearly describe Riker and
DeCoster's (1971) learning as a total process, as
they incorporate traditional academic learning
and skill development with personal commitments, interpersonal dynamics, and community engagement. Clearly, such holistic student
learning and development may be fostered in
the residential environment. In Student Success
in College: Creating Conditions That Matter, Kuh
and Associates (2005} described recent residence hall conditions that are educationally
effective. They include (a) human-scale environments housing small groups of students; (b)
faculty offices in residences that foster facultystudent interactions; (c) themed living environments that, while not necessarily related to an
academic discipline or major, include a course
or other academic component shared by the residents; (d) academic and personal support for
students; and (e) deliberate efforts to make educational programs (including first year student
programs) an integral pari of the residential
experience. These practices reflect modern
interpretations of connecting Ln- and out-ofclass learning and providing opporiunities for
students to develop as whole people, critical
aspects of what Riker and DeCoster (1971) described as foundational aspects oflearning as a
total process. They also reflect the assumption
that environments influence behavior.
VOLUME
3 5 , NO. 2 • O C T O B E H / N O V E M B E R
2008
93
Carolyn Palmer * Ellen M. Broido • lo Campbell
Environment Influences Behavior
Environments are very complex entities. Astin
(1993a) went so far as to say that "the environment encompasses everything that happens
to a student during the course of an education program that might conceivably influence
the outcomes under consideration" (p. 81). In
Educating by Design: Creating Campus Learning
Environments That Work, Strange and Banning
(2001} presented four environmental perspectives: the physical environment, the human
aggregate (the people in the environment), the
organizational/structural environment, and
the constructed/perceptual environment. According to Palmer (1996). the residence hall
environments consisted of "(a) physical facilities, (b) equipment and furnishings, (c) food
services, (d) management procedures, (e) staffing patterns, (f) student codes of conduct and
other policies, (g) student activities programming, and (h) all other elements of the total
housing program" (p. i).
Residence hall environments have changed
considerably since Riker and DeCoster (1971)
published their article 37 years ago. Many of
these changes were intended to foster student
learning and development, as well as heighten
student satisfaction and therefore retention
{Strange &. Banning, 2001). The third author
of this article, who currently serves as a director of housing and has worked in campus
housing for more than 25 years, has observed
many changes that influence the development
of students.
For example, she noted that double rooms
and common bathrooms still appeal to some
students and are particularly conducive to tlie
social adjustment of first year students. Some
94
THE
l O U R N A L
OF
COLLEGE
A N D
UNIVERSITY
S T U D E N T
institutions have replaced long corridors of
double rooms with stiites or apartments for
upperdass students in an attempt to meet their
developmental needs and to enhance their satisfaction. Some campuses have built additional
staff apartments for live-in faculty, professional
counselors, short-term instructors, speakers,
artists, and other guests. Typing rooms have
been turned into computer labs, and at least
some ofthe trash barrels have been replaced by
recycling bins. Most libraries, formal lounges,
and pay phones at the end ofthe hallway have
been eliminated. Also, land-line telephones
and hard-wired access to the Internet and
cable television from student rooms may soon
become obsolete as more and more students
use wireless technologies.
Our third author also indicated that many
facilities have deteriorated as a result of deferred maintenance. In come cases, significant
portions of repair and renovation budgets have
been appropriated by other campus entities;
in other cases, insufficient funds have been
allocated over the years for the types of facility improvements that are needed today, particularly at the purchase and installation stage.
For example, replacing older shower heads
and windows with newer models that conserve
water and energy may save costs over the long
run, but their up-front costs may be prohibitive. When institutions are able to build new
residence halls or renovate existing structures,
they are often creating "green" buildings, reducing energy and water usage and waste products
and building with locally sourced, sustainable, and non-toxic materials. Frequently, the
initiatives for these projects have come from
students, who are increasingly aware of their
effects on the environment and its natural re-
H O U S I N G
Commentary on Riker and DeCoster
When institutions are able to build
new residence halls or renovate
existing structures, they are often
creating "gieen" buildings, reducing
energy and water usage and waste
products and building with locally
sourced, sustainable, and non-toxic
materials. Frequently, the initiatives
for these projects have come from
students, who are increasingly aware
of their effects on the environment
and its natural resources.
sources. Some residence halls have monitoring
systems that allow students and other users to
track the energy consumption of the building's
residents, allowing the physical structures to
serve educational functions as well.
Housing officers who have a finite number
of dollars to spend have many hard choices to
make. Effective safety and security systems
are paramount, but expensive. Balancing what
students need and what students want is not
an easy task. For example, cosmetic improvements to the facilities may influence occupancy rates. The plumbing, heating, and electrical
systems "behind the walls" may need to be
updated, but students may prefer new paint
on the wall and new carpeting on the floor.
Roof repairs, student room furniture, shower
renovations, hot water heaters, cable television
connections, equipment for the exercise room,
cleaning supplies, dining facilities, kitchen
equipment, food costs, trash collection, security cameras, residentially based academic programs, staff training, staff salaries and benefits,
staff computers, and all the other items in the
housing budget make it necessary for senior
housing administrators to engage in the continual process of prioritizing the needs viithin
the "total" housing system, balancing structural needs, student desires, and changes needed
to enhance student learning and development.
After all, as the student is a whole person and
learning is a total process, the residence hall
environment as a whole is greater than the
sum of its parts. In 1965, Riker noted that
because student housing was seen solely as a
business enterprise rather than as a setting to
foster student learning, some housing systems
were composed of "nonsensical combinations
of facilities, staff, and activities^-each tending
to cancel out the effectiveness of the other" (p.
i). We have come a long way since then, thanks
largely to the leadership of senior housing officers who coordinate comprehensive housing
systems. We still have our fair share of challenges, but the distance between where we are
and where we should be is no longer measured
in "light years" as indicated by Riker in 1965.
REFLECTING ON THE GENERAL
OBJECTIVES FOR COLLEGE
STUDENT HOUSING
Since Riker and DeCoster created their fivelevel model of housing objectives in 1971,
housing and residence life organizations have
become more complex, largely because of specialization. Without appropriate leadership and
coordination, this specialization can become
VOLUME
3 5 . N O . 2 • O C T O B ER Í N O V E M B E f i
ZOOS
95
Carolyn Palmer • Ellen M. Broido • lo Campbell
compartmentalization, yielding competition
for resources, lack of appreciation for the work
of those in olher compartments, and a general
operating scheme in which the proverbial
left hand does not know what the right hand
is doing.
On many campuses, facilities,
dining services, residence life, and
other housing staff meet regularly
and have a shared understanding
of student needs and organizational
goals. Progressive senior housing
officers deliberately attempt to
break down silos and cross-train
their staff members. This crosstraining is critical, as many housing
staff have become very focused,
particularly in large operations.
Although they are more complex, effective
housing systems also operate as integrated
systems. On many campuses, facilities, dining
services, residence life, and other housing staff
meet regularly and have a shared understanding of student needs and organizational goals.
Progressive senior housing officers deliberately attempt to break down silos and crosstrain their staff members. This cross-training
is critical, as many housing staff have become
very focused, particularly in large operations.
96
THE
l O U R N A L
OF
COLLEGE
AND
UNIVERSITY
S T U D E N T
Specialists in marketing and communications, contracts and assignments, safety and
security, maintenance and custodial management, information technology, judicial affairs,
programming and activities, budgeting and
accounting, nutrition and dining services, academic support, counseling, staff selection and
training, multicultural affairs, group advising,
and first year experience programs must communicate regularly and work collaboratively to
create a total housing system that effectively
serves and satisfies its resident students.
The one change we would make to Riker
and DeCoster's (1971) model is to replace the
solid lines that imply separations between the
five levels of objectives for college hotising
(see p. 6) with dashed lines indicating fluent
movement and open communication between
levels. Another change would be to emphasize
a student orientation at all levels. We fully acknowledge that staff at Levels r and 2 foster
the living and learning experiences of students
indirectly by providing physical environments
conducive to those experiences and that those
at Levels 3, 4. and 5 work with students more
directly to foster the development of community, responsible citizenship, and an interpersonal environment that is conducive to
learning, growth, and development. Readers
should note that higher levels do not signify
greater importance, but, as in any hierarchical model, lower levels form the foundation
upon which the higher levels can be built. In
fact, if the tasks associated with lower layers of
the hierarchy are not achieved at a satisfactory
level, the entire system may collapse. At best,
the efforts of those associated with the upper
layers would be compromised by a weakened
support structure, in contrast to one in which
H O U S I N G
Commentaty on Riker and DeCoster
StafF who work primarily with the physical environment contribute to the educational role of
student housing. This fact demonstrates the
important roles that all stafF, including those
who work primarily with the physical environment, have in contributing to the educational
role of student housing.
In 1974, Brown indicated that
Tliere is sufficient evidence already
gathered which suggests that we can
structure the residence hall environment in ways that facilitate student
development and enhance students' educational experiences. We do not know
everything nor do we know as much
as we would like to know about how to
best structure that environment, but I
believe we know enough to start or to
continue trying—wherever we might
be on our own campuses, (p. 52)
The educational role that Riker and DeCoster
(1971) recommended for college student
housing has developed considerably during the
past 37 years. We do not have all the answers
to questions of how to support fully students'
leaming and development in residence halls
;ind how to leverage the resources necessary to
do so. We !)elieve that the two premises Riker
and DeCoster asserted, that environment influences behavior and that learning is a total
process, have been and will continue to be
foundational to efforts to enhance the educational value of student housing. We and our
resident students owe a debt of gratitude to the
researchers who built on their work and to the
many housing officers who had the courage to
begin and the commitment to continue implementing their ideas on their own campuses.
REFERENCES
American Association for Higher Education,
American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared
responsibility for leaming: A joint report. Washington, DC: Authors.
American Association of Colleges and Universities.
(2007). College leaming far the new giobal century.
Retrieved March 18. 2008, from hUp:/www.aacu.
orgf advocacy ¡leap/documents/GlobalCentury^
ßnal.pdf
American College Personne! Association. (1994).
Student leamir^ imperative: Implications for
student affairs. Washington, DC: Author,
American Council on Education, Committee on
Student Personnel Work. (1945). Student personnel work in the postwar college. Washington, DC:
Author.
Astin. A. W. (1993a). Assessment Jor excellence: The
philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx
Press.
Astin, A. W. (1993b). What matters in college? San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blimling, G. S.. & Schuh, ]. H. (Eds.). (1981). Maximizing educational opportunities in residence halls
(New Directions for Student Services Sourcebook No. 13). San Francisco: (ossey-Bass.
Brown, R. D. (1974). Student development and residence education: Should it be social engineering? In D. A. DeCoster & P. Mable (Eds.), Student
development and education in college residence halls
(pp. 41-54). Washington, DC: American College
Personne! Association.
Chickering, A. W. (1975). Commuting versus resident
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeCoster, D. A., & Mable, P. (Eds.). (1974). Student
development and education in college residence
halls. Cincinnati, OH: American College Personnel Association.
VOLUME
35.
NO. 2 • 0 C T 0 8 E H/N 0 V E M B E R
200B
97
Carolyn Palmer • Ellen M. Broido • lo Campbell
Feldinan, K., & Newcomb. T. (196g). The impact of
college on students. San Francisco: |ossey-Bass.
Frederiksen, C. F. |ig93)- A brief history of collegiate
housing. In R. B. Winston, Ir.. S. Anchors, & Associates. Student housing and residential life (pp.
167-183), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie. J.. Schuh, |. H.. Whitt, E. J.. &
Associates. (2005). Student success in college:
Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lucas, C. |. (2006). American higher education: A
history (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave MacMJllan.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators & American College Personnel Association. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide
focus on the student experience. Washington,
DC: Authors. Retrieved March 18, 2008. from
http://www.naspa.org/membership/leader_ex_pdf/
lr_long.pdf
THE
l O U R N A L
OF
COLLEGE
AND
UNIVERSITY
STUDENT
National Housing Conference. (1949)- Transcript
ofthe business meeting. Available in the archives
of the Association of College and University
Housing Officers-International.
Palmer, C. (1996). Assessing the outcomes of the
residential experience. ACUHOI
Resource
Papers: Series 2000. Columbus, OH: Association of College and University Housing
Officers-I ntemational.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college
affects students: Fmdifigs and insights from twenty
years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, F. !.. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How
college affects students: A third decade of research.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Riker, H.C. (1965). College housing as learning centers.
Washington, DC: The American College Personnel Association, in cooperation with the Association of College and University Housing OtBcers.
H O U S I N G
Commentary on Riker and DeCoster
Riker. H. C , & DeCoster. D. A. (1971). The educational role in college student housing. Joumal of
College and University Student Housing, j(i), 3-7.
Rudolph. F, (1990). The American college ei university:
A histar]'. Athens, G A; University of Georgia.
Schroeder. C. C . Mable. P.. & Associates. (1994). Realizing the educational potential of residence halls.
San Francisco: |ossey-Bass.
Schuli, J. H. (Ed.). (1999). Educational programmif^
and student learning in college and university resiiJetice/wi/Is. Columbus,OH; Association of College
and University Housing Officers-International.
Strange. C. C . & Banning, ). H. (2001). Educatingby
design: Creatíng campus learning environments that
work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Transcript of the National Housing Conference. (1949).
Available from the archives of the Association
of College and University Housing Officers-International, Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green
State University.
Unruh, D. L (1995). Generational analysis o/stwticftt
issues in college and university housing, ig4g-igg4.
Unpublished master's thesis, Bowling Green
State University, Bowling Green, OH.
Williamson. E. G. (1961). Student personnel services
in colleges and universities: Some foundations, techniques, and processes of pr(^am administration.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Terenzini, P.T.,& Pascarella, E.T. (1997). Living with
myths: Undergraduate education in America. In
E. |. Whitt (Ed.). College student affairs administration (pp. 173-179). Needham Heights, MA:
Simon &. Schuster.
VOLUME
3 5 ,NO, 2 • 0 C TO B E R / N OVE MBEfi
2008
99